From the end of December 2002 to early January 2003, France appeared ready to dispatch an aircraft carrier and up to 15,000 troops to fight alongside the US and Coalition forces to overthrow Saddam. I had assumed all along that French obstruction was just some combination of spite and holding out for the best price. I was sure France would join us as they had in 1991, and this article explores the mystery of France's decision to oppose the war instead of join it.
Winds of Change quotes an earlier post:
A radical shift in establishment and public opinion from France's 'inevitable' joining alongside the Americans occurred within a matter of days. Suddently, it was hysterical opposition to the American 'imperialist' war 'for oil' as reported in the ensuing weeks in the French media (even up to this day), echoed by government officials, and reflected in public opinion. 1940 all over again.
So what happened?
Was France worried it couldn't supply their contribution and so backed out to avoid embarassment? This seems unlikely. We did not need French forces so even if this was an issue, the French could have reduced their commitment to a level they could have supported and would have had our gratitude.
Was fear of Islamist terrorism in France the key? If so, it was misplaced. Islamist anger is independent of any individual action or position. I'd think the French would be aware of this.
Was the still-hidden Oil for Food scandal the reason for opposing the war? Unless this was so hidden that even the government was unaware until somebody made it known to Chirac, this seems unlikely. In addition, wouldn't this simply make France more likely to join the war to earn some credit to make up for the scandal? Did the French really think they could stop us? I find it hard to believe that level of delusion could exist in Paris.
Did Germany's change in opinion during their September 2002 election drive the change? If so, that was quite a delayed reaction since the preparations by France for war extended into January 2003.
Or was the desire to preserve loans, oil contracts, and other trade agreements the key? Again, joining the war was a better way to gain economic advantage--from US reonstruction contracts to good will from the new Iraqi government. The French would have to count on Saddam surviving and prospering under the end of sanctions to exploit any Saddam-era agreements.
Or was the desire to oppose America so reflexive that they could not go with us? If so, explain preparations for war. Explain cooperation over Haiti. Explain cooperation over Lebanon. Opposition is not reflexive it seems.
Was French public opinion opposed? Well sure, but it was in 1990 too and yet after the war the French backed the war. Why assume anything different this time? And as the link shows, the French public was resigned to war. The opposition was not screaming bloody murder, either.
Whatever it was, given the general French acceptance--though not enthusiasm I'll grant--of joining the war on our side, it hardly seems likely that moral objections played a role in the change.
I had questioned my judgment over France's decision to stay out. I had predicted their participation all through the fall of 2002. Winds of Change makes me feel better about my judgment then.
The question remains about what affected France's judgment.
